In Sefton, by selling the right to receive the rents, the seller in effect positively asserted there was no legal impediment to receiving them.
Summary of this case from Byrum v. Brand1990.
[EDITORS' NOTE: PAGES 360 — 384 CONTAINING SEFTON v. PASADENA WALDORF SCHOOL HAVE BEEN OMITTED.]
Deleted on direction of Supreme Court by order dated June 21, 1990.
In Sefton, by selling the right to receive the rents, the seller in effect positively asserted there was no legal impediment to receiving them.
Summary of this case from Byrum v. BrandFull title:Sefton v. Pasadena Waldorf School
Court:Court of Appeal of California
Date published: Jan 1, 1990
Section 1710, subdivision (2) similarly defines deceit in part as "[t]he assertion, as a fact, of that which…